The Christian church in general (though it does not follow exclusively, that any particular church adheres to its original establishment) is admitted, not upon assertion, but upon rational proof, to have been, and to be, established by God. It is also admitted, that we are bound to that, which is truly his church, by means of the Scriptures; because they constitute the proof. But the church of Rome, the church here meant, first asserts, that its votaries are bound to it by the Scriptures, and then assumes the sole power of interpreting the sense of those Scriptures, by the most suspicious of all possible authorities, its own traditions, which it would be hard to distinguish from its own will and pleasure. Thus the church of Rome founds its doctrines on the Scriptures, and the Scriptures may be interpreted as it pleases the church of Rome, which, if not the best, is the most commodious system of interpretation ever adopted.

If the truth only were the object, the rational rule would assert, that if any church, upon the pretext of tradition, forces the sense of Scripture, from what sound criticism, aided by a knowledge of the original language, proves it to be, that church is no longer a true Christian church, if the error affects any funda mental doctrine of Christianity preached by Christ, or his Apostles. Or whether, by this means, or any other, it introduces a doctrine absolutely inconsistent with those which the Apostles have given in their writings, the bond of Christian attachment, or obedience, is from that time broken; and, to use Bossuet's own words nearly, a church ceases to be so, when it ceases to teach the truth, as it is revealed by God.

Of the assumption, that the Holy Spirit has presided continually over the councils of the church, enough, it may be hoped, has been said in the preceding tract. To this it is unnecessary to add more, than that a belief in the holy Catholic church is very distinct from a belief in a church which calls itself Catholic. That only can be the holy Catholic church, which teaches no other doctrines than those which Christ commanded to be taught. This is the point in debate. Bossuet asserts that, "To the end that she might for ever banish all arbitrary interpretations, which make men's imaginations pass for Scripture," his church" has bound herself to interpret them, in what relates to faith and morals, according to the sense of the holy Fathers; and that she does not receive any doctrine which is not conformable to the tradition of all preceding ages."

It has already been proved, as to the doctrine of transubstantiation, that it is not conformable to the tradition of all preceding ages; and though, in such a sweeping assertion, one exception proved is sufficient, it may not be improper to ask, whence did it happen, that none of the Apostles, or early Fathers, have left any trace of having preserved a relique of ST. STEPHEN, (who died before the conversion of St. Paul,) or of his canonization, or a prayer to him, or the Virgin? Simply because it was no doctrine of

THEIRS.

But let it be understood, that though we oppose

* Translation, p. 162.

the errors, or abuses, of the authority in any particular church, we do not, therefore, by any means deny, that, according to the command of Christ, and the institutions of the Apostles, a succession of teachers was appointed in the Christian church; and that authority was given to them to teach the doctrines of Christ. But authority goes no further than the terms of its grant. If perverted, or abused, it is so far null and void; and this we contend is the case of the church of Rome. '

The Bishop observes, and truly, that the reformed churches of France, in order to uniformity of doctrine, felt the necessity of having recourse to a synod. In the government of the church in general, as in that of a state, if the individual churches intend unity, there must be somewhere a superintendence, whether under the name of convocation, synod, or council; and in concerns, or points, of importance, those who are the most capable must be selected to canvass them, and form the best opinion they can. It is also true, that, in most assemblies of the kind, there will be individuals, who, whether possessed of more knowledge and probity than the rest, or through ignorant error, ambition, pride, or selfish motives, will dissent from the general opinion.

But there will always be this difference in the very mode of dissension. The man of knowledge and probity will not dissent on light grounds, or dubious positions; and will lessen the obstacles to agreement, as far as may be possible, without giving up essentials; whereas the other will magnify his particular view of a dubious position into an essential, and seldom think

any ground to be avoided upon which he can raise a difficulty. The object of the former is the truth only; that of the latter, self-importance. And whilst human nature is what it is, there will always be such. The common sense, and rational opinion, of mankind, will, however, notwithstanding this, hold its course; and the necessity of union, as well as the real advantage of argument, finally prevail.

In the beginning of the Reformation, the eagerness to escape from the errors of the church of Rome led the Protestants of France to reject, we think, more than was necessary; in England it was conducted with a moderation and discrimination that do it honour. It was satisfied with laying aside what was decisively

erroneous.

It is a common objection to the general reading of the Scriptures, that dissensions arise in consequence of it. It might as well be objected to the use of daily food, that some will be gluttons and others drunkards. Is it any reason that mankind should be deprived of food spiritual, or corporeal, because that some will turn the blessing of God to their own destruction? Or, are the teachers to monopolize the power of leading men astray by keeping them hoodwinked? If there were not a very powerful apprehension that the perusal of the Scriptures would overturn their doctrines, there would be no need of preventing it. Other Christian sects differ chiefly upon abstruse points, either not determined by Scripture, (and such therefore as may be argued upon while the world lasts,) or on forms, as to which the argument rests more upon inference than direct expression, and

these also allow a very convenient latitude for argument. But the appeal of both sides is to the Scriptures to determine whether the inference, or position, is right or wrong. This is fair and candid as to the authority, whereas the church of Rome suppresses them, and prevents inquiry.

But it is argued that she does it to prevent misinterpretation. If this argument were well founded, it would seem that the Scriptures were writings of so dubious a kind, that they might admit of a variety of different interpretations as to the rules of conduct, and the essential principles of the faith, which they are not; and if they were, then the faith itself would be in danger. That there are some passages hard to be understood, is mentioned even by an apostle, with the warning to the ignorant and unlearned to take care that they do not wrest them to their own destruction; but this is no reason that they should not read and profit by what they can understand, and inquire of the learned as to the rest. If the church of Rome ever ventures to permit this generally, then, and then only, we may begin to look forward towards an approximation, of which, at present, the prospect does not appear to open.

FINIS.